From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 18:21:13 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Eric, please can you clarify
In-Reply-To: <9412020112.AA23439@forth.stir.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <199412020320.TAA14480@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: Jonathon Fletcher <j.fletcher@stirling.ac.uk>

     Can you clarify your intention for the list ? I'm a little puzzled by
   the alternatives that are flying about. 

The first time this got debated was last year.  There the proposal was
check sigs, delay, eventually bounce.  That's not what I'm proposing
this time.

I mentioned this again, and the discussion started up again.  Almost
at once I wanted to avoid the flames from the previous time, so I
restricted the proposal to be for marking and delaying only.

   Are you intending to implement both of
   these, one of these, or one now and the other later ? 

First of all, I'm not "planning" on any right now.  I am considering
doing some of them and I have decided to do some related work.

The first action would be autonag; messages sent back to non-signers
from the server.  The second would be automark; header fields for
advocacy would be added to the messages.  The third would be delay for
some as yet unspecified interval.

The timing of these is not decided, and would certainly be iterative.

   What type of
   checking are you intending on signatures - just syntax or signature
   verification ?

At first, only syntax checking.  The problems of key distribution
prevent otherwise.

   I apologize for asking for clarification, but I've lost the signal in
   amongst all this noise.

No, actually, a summary was in order.

Eric